When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I have two answers for this discussion post: first, I personally feel that because scientists have been testing on animal models for decades, there should be enough data to predict how the body will react to certain diseases based on the medicines being used. I feel that there has been too much money invested into research and industry for cures to not have been solved at this point. I probably would have been okay with animal testing if it were new and temporary being that unfortunately, part of life is making sacrifices in order to save others. At this day in age, too many innocent animals have been abused, tortured, and terrorized for basically nothing. Second, one way to communicate with animal activists is to have them encourage people who have disorders or diseases to donate their bodies to science. With this being done, there is consent and sufficient data can be collected opposed to using a model similar to the human body. Another alternative could be to encourage them to educate people on their diet. The average disease is caused by unhealthy eating habits. If people were to eat more consciously, there would be a less need to do research seeing how the numbers would decrease overtime.
I would have to disagree on your point on not using the animal with the first on there being too much investment in the area of research in industry that would be a substitute for animal testing. New products, materials, and combination devices are created each year with a new level of scrutiny being placed of the safety and efficacy of the product. I do agree there is probably too many animal studies that are not necessary, but the regulations to run a study have helped limit the mundane studies. There are many animal models that are important for replication of the human condition, such as the caprine or ovine model, that should be picked carefully to properly assess the necessary property of the medical device related to the study. The reason why a cadaveric study can't be used is that the cells are no longer living; there are many times a researcher is looking at the way cells interact or grow into the implant where a cadaver that has been properly prepared has no ability to prove the devices efficacy. The cadaver can be used for mechanical testing or other material characterizations, but it can't provide the full battery of tests that are needed for biocompatibility. Finally, there are many elective surgeries that can be reduced by a healthier patient, but there are a large number of cases that account for trauma and underlying conditions (such as cancerous tumors or deformity) that need innovative ways to treat a person while ensuring they have the highest quality of life that can't be fixed by a healthier lifestyle.
When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I think communication and clarity of experimentation is the best way to help the discussion between medical device companies and animal rights groups. Realistically, Animal testing is necessary for the success and approval of certain medical devices. I am currently working on a project that is in the early phases of product development and it requires an animal study to be submitted to show the efficacy of the product so that eventually it can be approved for human use. The pre-clinical department where I work takes this trial with the upmost level of respect and are abiding to every government guideline that corresponds to animal testing. I think having internal and external auditors for pre-clinical studies can help improve transparency with animal rights groups to assure them that protocols are in place to care for the animals before and during the study. This might help quell some activists who feel that companies are violating certain guidelines.
Thanks,
Matt
Animal testing is an unfortunate reality for product assessments. The pain and suffering animals endure comes attached to the advancements and research gained. Opposing arguments against animal testing for preclinical research is still om going. However, researchers sometimes get harassed by the anti-animal testing activists’ groups. Through dialogue and mutual understanding, the conflict could be mitigated. The researchers try to minimize animal testing as much as possible. FDA also approves simulation studies instead of preclinical study in certain cases nowadays. So, we can hope this unfortunate reality can be minimized.
Good communication is the obvious and most important step before anything for two parties in question rather than becoming physical when disagreements arise. It is not necessarily to come to a set agreement, but just a way to discuss the arising issues and concerns between both parties. What would help the most is probably establishing some sort of law, guidelines, or agreement where companies that animal testing or research have to do it a certain way. Obviously, animal cruelty and misusing animals for research should not be allowed in any way shape or form. As said before, having good open communication is key to talk about how the experiments are being conducted. For example, they can only do it with such and such animals and only go in certain progression. They can do research, but they have to document all of the procedure, report it, and also make it public, in other words, transparency. They should also fully explain the reasons why they are conducting these experiments based on evidence and be prepared to defend it fully. Sometimes you do not see what researchers are doing to animals. Sometimes they are hiding how they are really testing their products on animals. That leads to huge concerns on ethical and moral standards for this type of research. This can lead to mistrust to the company and their products. They should be transparent about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Being open, honest, and clear to the public about their testing can help build a little bit of mutual trust.
There should also be some sort of common ground for the researchers and animal activist groups to find. That would be hard since animal activist groups essentially want to end the use of animals in scientific research and that they should not be subjected to this. In the lesson, it was said that pre-clinical research, which includes animal testing and research is required for getting human trials and is done before testing on human beings. Testing medical devices on human beings firsthand can lead to disasters, such as serious injury that can potentially lead to death, and the company will have a lawsuit on their hands. Plus, animal subjects are better experimental models as some experiments are unable to be conducted with human subjects. Both parties can discuss any sort of alternatives that can leave them both satisfied. Like still being able to conduct animal research, but dealing with minimal damage to the animals. This would be additional research, but keeping budget and time in mind. There are definitely ways to find alternatives that are cost-effective, but it is a matter of fact if both sides agree to establish it or not. Another way maybe is researchers could do something like where these groups could view how research is being done on the animals. This could go one of two ways, but maybe things would be different if the animal activists could see it for themselves.
A huge thing about communication is the sense of respect. Both researchers and animal activist groups should have respect for each other. Researchers should not subject animals to such cruelty to their experiments. On the other hand, animal activist groups should not go around to laboratories and destroy animal research work. They should not subject themselves to violence. Both sides have different values and bias regarding animal testing. Sometimes even after doing all of this, both sides will never fully be satisfied with the results, like these groups are still iffy on testing animals for science. But it is best to work together rather than butting heads constantly to finally reach an agreement.
